PC New EULA grants 7D2D all of your content?

[zztong]

Correction: Everyone loses except for the lawyers. They get paid regardless of the enforceability of their EULA or the merits of their case.

Agreed.

Would the POI be considered a completely new derivative work? And would it be considered derivative of the game software OR the original building design owned by the LLC? It makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

I think arguments are going to try to draw an analogy to something that already exists for which there is already precedent. Is a POI a blue print? Is a POI a game level? Is a POI art? Is a POI a document? We won't know until somebody takes a case all the way through the process.

In my mind, I'm making a game level. I may use TFP's tools and it may only work in TFP's game, but I made the game level expressed in the way the blocks are stacked so the copyright is mine. I licensed my work under the GPL. I also agreed to the EULA. I also distribute POIs that are derivatives of TFP's POIs. So... there's a giant legal tangle that is purely academic until TFP sues me. I've likely screwed up something.

I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

 

[Rotor]

I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

Off with your head! 

Sorry, wrong story.

 

[Sapient6]

(Emphasis mine.)

If you think about sections like this from an inverse perspective they start to make a lot of sense. Or, to put it another way, from the perspective of a company that has been friendly and very supportive of modding in general.

The question becomes "are there any reasons for this type of language beyond 'Evilcorp wants to take my @%$#'?"

And the answer is an emphatic YES. From a software company perspective, lets take your bandit mod that you mentioned earlier. So we get down the road a bit, let's optimistically say it's the year 2027, and version 3.0 launches and bandits are in. It's a wildly successful implementation and 7days enjoys the biggest uptick in sales in the company's history. Articles are being published about how much money they are making.

And there you are thinking "hey, that was my idea they are making money off of." So you decide to sue them for taking your idea and making tons of money off of it.

Of course they'd win that fight in court. They've been pretty up front about their plans to add bandits all along. But even if they hadn't, bandits just aren't a unique idea in the zombie apocolypse genre. But all of that can take a lot of lawyer time to establish and prove.

This EULA section gives them a legal shortcut. They don't have to spend time establishing all that @%$# (and hope they get a judge that understands it).

When it comes right down to it, games that support modding will all have a section in their EULA like this. The company has to be able to protect themselves so that modders can cut them off from growing their IP. Can these company use that section for Evil? Yeah, probably. But I wouldn't light up the torches and grab the pitchforks without some indication that there is something to worry about. TFP seems plenty aware that modders generate income for TFP as-is.

Heck, I doubt they'll go after custom armors, like Red's and Mumphry's. All they have to do is offer unique and well put together armor dlc and it will make bank for very little overhead.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

Hold on, why are even talking about paid DLC´s here? What happened to TFP saying there will be no paid DLC`s? i just now remebered this.

Also i think nothing is ever gonna happen unless you try to make money with your mod, other than voluntary donations like patreon or compete with a paid DLC which in theory shouldn´t even exist.

Like said before, they would only hurt themselves if they do that.

 

[Riamus]

Hold on, why are even talking about paid DLC´s here? What happened to TFP saying there will be no paid DLC`s? i just now remebered this.

Also i think nothing is ever gonna happen unless you try to make money with your mod, other than voluntary donations like patreon or compete with a paid DLC which in theory shouldn´t even exist.

Like said before, they would only hurt themselves if they do that.

When did they say there wouldn't be any paid DLC?  They've made comments off and on over the past few years that have said they'd consider paid DLC, but that the DLC would likely be things like cosmetics.

 

[SylenThunder]

Hold on, why are even talking about paid DLC´s here? What happened to TFP saying there will be no paid DLC`s? i just now remebered this.

Also i think nothing is ever gonna happen unless you try to make money with your mod, other than voluntary donations like patreon or compete with a paid DLC which in theory shouldn´t even exist.

Like said before, they would only hurt themselves if they do that.

I don't recall them ever saying this.  There was always a plan for some DLC. What they were adamantly against was micro-transactions.

 

[Rotor]

Someone get the dead horse beating gif

 

[khzmusik]

And there you are thinking "hey, that was my idea they are making money off of." So you decide to sue them for taking your idea and making tons of money off of it.

They don't have to require assignment of exclusive right in the EULA to do that. A non-exclusive license to use modders' content would achieve exactly the same purpose.

In fact, I don't even know what TFP gain from being granted modders' exclusive rights. Mods are derivative works of the game, so TFP can always take them down, without requiring any license of modders' copyrights. And a non-exclusive license works just as well if they want to use those works themselves, or defend themselves against lawsuits like the one you mentioned.

The only legal reason to ask for an exclusive license is if they want to exclude the modders themselves from using their own creations. Either, to do it in cases where it is not a derivative work of TFP - meaning, not a mod for 7D2D. (The EULA seems to preclude this, though there is wiggle room in the language.) Or, they want to take over the modders' work - like, taking a free mod, claiming it, and selling it, while removing the modder's right to offer the free version.

Both scenarios seem very unlikely to me, but I can't think of any other legal reasons for it.

When it comes right down to it, games that support modding will all have a section in their EULA like this.

Most other games that support modding (or even that unofficially don't object to modding) have a non-exclusive license in their EULAs. The recent example I brought up is Forever Skies.

Another example is Minecraft, which abides by Microsoft's Services Agreement:

Your Content. Many of our Services allow you to create, store or share Your Content or receive material from others. We don’t claim ownership of Your Content. Your Content remains yours and you are responsible for it.

[...] b. To the extent necessary to provide the Services to you and others, to protect you and the Services, and to improve Microsoft products and services, you grant to Microsoft a worldwide and royalty-free intellectual property license to use Your Content, for example, to make copies of, retain, transmit, reformat, display, and distribute via communication tools Your Content on the Services. If you publish Your Content in areas of the Service where it is available broadly online without restrictions, Your Content may appear in demonstrations or materials that promote the Service. Some of the Services are supported by advertising. Controls for how Microsoft personalizes advertising are available at https://choice.live.com (https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=286759). We do not use what you say in email, chat, video calls or voice mail, or your documents, photos or other personal files, to target advertising to you. Our advertising policies are covered in detail in the Privacy Statement. 

Notice that they do not make you grant them an exclusive license.

Some indie games with large modding communities - like Subnautica - don't even have their own EULAs.

In fact, the only other EULAs that I've seen, which require the signing over of exclusive rights, are the EULAs for Fallout. I'm sure there are more, but those are the only ones I've been able to dig up.

 

[meganoth]

The first line of the quoted EULA makes it clear for what **purpose** this paragraph is ("gameplay map, screenshot or a video of your game play"), even though there is a "included but not limiting" phrase before this. Since TFP is very obviously aware of mods existing a judge would at least ask why mods were not included in that list if that paragraph meant to be about mods as well. "but not limiting" could just be safety language legal papers are full of, like the salvatory clause. Using the exclusive licence makes it possible to take down videos or screenshots from other websites.

Now, no matter what purpose the paragraph has, TFP could still use it to try to shut down a mod though. They might even be able to do it without this paragraph on other grounds, just the threat of a legal battle would stop most modders, because they wouldn't want to risk their savings paying for a lawyer and the undetermined result.

 

[theFlu]

what **purpose** this paragraph is ("gameplay map, screenshot or a video of your game play")

How are these even the same?

I'd have to assume "gameplay map" refers to RWG maps, which are algorithmically generated by TFP's software, slightly guided by the user. While I don't really know why TFP would need the rights to stop people from spreading those, the results are relatively straightforwardly "generated by TFP" - and thus sometwhat "their IP" already.

"Gameplay video" is recorded by another SW (like OBS), contains the shenanigans (artistic choices) of the player, making it a separate work. Some will argue against that, sure, but that doesn't even matter - I really fail to see why TFP would want the right to stop from spreading those. Even if someone makes a vid to mock the game, that'll be "fair use" for criticism/commentary, regardless who the assigned owner is.

Whether mods are included or not, the included list doesn't seem like something they'd need exclusive rights for in any case.

 

[YourMirror]

Stop modding if you are so afraid. I don't see the problem. Either you agree or you don't. If you don't, again, just stop modding if it scares you that much. This is becoming a "i need to be right" discussion. The EULA changes are "old" already  and there is still an overwhelming amount of mods available and maintained. No fear there as it seems. If TFP wanted to change it, they would have. But they don't. So feel feel free to continue this purely hypothetical discussion and waste more time over it. See where it gets you.

 

[Sapient6]

In fact, I don't even know what TFP gain from being granted modders' exclusive rights.

This precludes you from profiting off of your mods.

I have no strong opinions about that. I'll donate money to a modder from time to time (when I find that I'm enjoying a mod that rises to a professional level of quality, which is rare as hell). But if someone wants to charge money for a mod itself I'm not going to bite, so if this EULA makes such a modder decide not to create any mods... well for me that's a distinction without a difference.

Or, they want to take over the modders' work - like, taking a free mod, claiming it, and selling it, while removing the modder's right to offer the free version.

But you already said that mods are derivative works (I agree) so TFP can take the free mods down... so the exclusive right isn't achieving this at all.

Either, to do it in cases where it is not a derivative work of TFP - meaning, not a mod for 7D2D.

What sort of thing are you talking about here? I'm drawing a blank. The parameters being: it's not derivative but it, through the game, gives rise to copyright interest.

I'd have to assume "gameplay map" refers to RWG maps

I think that prefabs would fall under this category as well. As would maps created in third party applications.

 

[theFlu]

I think that prefabs would fall under this category as well. As would maps created in third party applications.

Hmm, the sentence starts with "The Software may allow you to create content,"; prefabs would match when done via the prefab editor; so for prefabs sure, maybe. But it wouldn't really apply to videos. They're not the output of this software.

Third party maps .. hmm. Teragon maps are gameplay maps, yes, but not ones "allowed to be created by the software"; a sane reading would require to match both. The addition of the "videos" in the same clause negates said sane reading... so who the F knows

So feel feel free to continue this purely hypothetical discussion and waste more time over it. See where it gets you.

Oh we know, it won't get us anywhere. Procrastination is a helluva drug.

 

[khzmusik]

This precludes you from profiting off of your mods.

It has nothing to do with that. TFP already authorizes the use of their own copyrighted material, and places a limit that its use can not be commercial. "Subject to this Agreement and its terms and conditions, Licensor hereby grants you the nonexclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal non-commercial use for gameplay on a single computer or gaming unit, unless otherwise specified in the Software documentation."

Transfer of ownership occurs whether you are profiting off your mods or not.

But you already said that mods are derivative works (I agree) so TFP can take the free mods down... so the exclusive right isn't achieving this at all.

My quote was not about merely taking down a mod, but taking it over as their own property. Not to prevent it from being distributed, but to prevent anyone other than The Fun Pimps from distributing it. That's the "exclusive" in exclusive rights.

If it was merely about taking a mod down - then you're right, the exclusive right isn't achieving this at all.

So why is it in the EULA? That's the mystery to me.

What sort of thing are you talking about here? I'm drawing a blank. The parameters being: it's not derivative but it, through the game, gives rise to copyright interest.

Anything you create that you put into a mod (or map, or gameplay video...) becomes the property of The Fun Pimps.

Let's say you create new character models for a mod. if you later decide to make your own video game, and you want to re-use the characters you created for a 7D2D mod, you can't. Those characters are the property of TFP, so you're infringing on their copyright.

That's relevant to me, because I have created characters, and I want other people to use them in other video games (or in mods for other video games). On Nexus Mods, there's a permission called "Conversion permission," and I want a big green check box next to it.

Or, let's say you're a YouTube creator. You create a standard introduction for all your videos. If a video with that introduction features 7D2D gameplay footage, The Fun Pimps now own that introduction. You can't use it for any other gameplay footage because you're infringing on The Fun Pimps' copyright.

But - there's a clause in the EULA that says the transfer of ownership is "in connection with the Software and related goods and services," which can reasonably be interpreted so that TFP only owns the copyrights as they are used in connection with 7D2D. So I really doubt that's what TFP intend.

But again, if that's not what they intend to do, then they have no use for getting the exclusive rights to creators' copyrights.

So why is it in the EULA at all?

That's the big mystery to me. Anything they want to do, which is not completely scummy, can be achieved equally well with a non-exclusive license to use creators' works. The only reason for an exclusive license is to act scummy.

I'm almost positive that they don't intend to do any of that, so why is there all this hostility to the suggestion that they switch to a non-exclusive license?

 

[Sapient6]

TFP already authorizes the use of their own copyrighted material, and places a limit that its use can not be commercial

The clause makes the mod their own copyrighted material, so that it falls under that limitation. It gives them recourse under international copyright law to go after any profits they've realized, as well as punitive damages. And redundancy is important. Just because one clause achieves a thing does not mean they won't try to achieve that thing in multiple other ways.

Anyway, this conversation has reminded me how glad I am that I'm not a lawyer. I grew up around them, and that's close enough for me.

I think you and I are circling over minutia here, and that the only thing of substance that we really disagree on is whether or not this particular clause is concerning.

Hmm, the sentence starts with "The Software may allow you to create content,"

The second sentence muddies the water a bunch, and I suspect it may open the door to content created externally.

If you're right, then externally created maps would not be included, and neither would mods since they are created in a text editor and\or a C# IDE.

However, videos would definitely be included either way. Yeah, you use a 3rd party application to record the video. Good luck using that 3rd party application to create a video of 7dtd gameplay without using 7dtd software.

 

[theFlu]

However, videos would definitely be included either way. Yeah, you use a 3rd party application to record the video. Good luck using that 3rd party application to create a video of 7dtd gameplay without using 7dtd software.

Nowhere else does the target of your camera obtain Copyright of your film. There are identity rights in some places for people (no faces without consent), and some landmarks have been (ridiculously) unphotographable because the particular ferris wheel isn't giving its consent, but the copyrights aren't generally assigned to the target.

Whether the camera is a software for screen recording or a physical camera pointed at your screen, the object on the screen is IMO in the same position as the motorcycle you're revving up on your parking lot to boast on facebook about. You can't make the video without the target, but that gives the target no rights.

Now, what the legal precedent is, I can't say, and I assume it's going to vary greatly from place to place. But "morally" I'd say no rights should be conferred to TFP, OBS, MS or DELL, your landlord, or your power company, in this case.

 

[Sapient6]

But "morally" I'd say no rights should be conferred to TFP

We are in total agreement on the morality involved. I was just commenting on what the wording of the EULA is trying to achieve.

There are cases where what a camera captures can be copyright infringement, though. It really depends upon whether the photograph \ video thus created is substantially a separate work from the copyrighted material it includes. If you point your camera at a movie screen in a theatre, recording the entire movie, and then post that video online you are definitely infringing the movie's copyrights.

Which way a copyright infringement case goes when it comes to a video of videogame play is going to depend a great deal on where it is litigated and the person\people making the decision. Does the player contribute something of substance over and above what the creators of the game contributed? And here is where that EULA language starts to have some teeth. Without this language in the EULA the odds would likely still be in TFP's favor, but with this language the person playing the game "agreed" that the copyrights of videos they make of the game belong exclusively to TFP.

 

[theFlu]

We are in total agreement on the morality involved. I was just commenting on what the wording of the EULA is trying to achieve.

Good good. My brevity is sometimes seen as hostile, but none of such was intended in any case

The "camcording a movie" is a bit of a special case, in that the resulting video IS in direct competition with the original piece. At least in the base use case, where it's merely uploaded as is to a shady streaming site and/or distributed by other means. It's a viable as-is-replacement to the original movie. A video of a game (obviously) isn't a replacement to the game, and thus can't "by default" be considered to be in competition with it. Maybe in some cases, but not generally.

Does the player contribute something of substance over and above what the creators of the game contributed?

This, seems commonly misunderstood; it isn't a matter of "who contributed the most", it's a matter of "is the new thing sufficiently different". And the 'sufficient' in there, is actually quite small. There's a US court case of "someone re-uploaded my YT-video, wholesale with no editing, just a new title to mock us", that was essentially laughed out of court (including plaintiff made to pay the defense fees). Basically the difference of "to mock us" was sufficient. It's political, so I won't be linking anything here - althou the political nature may have also given credence to the "mockery-defense". But if anyone wants want to dig in, searching "akilah vs akkad" on startpage seems to have brought up the right thing.

In the case of playing a game, you're contributing plenty, the game doesn't do anything by itself, other than kill you from starvation in a few hours. Generally for game videos, I'd guess the "default judgement" is in favor of the player, not the dev.

The EULA, yeah.. that's what it's trying to do, and no-one seems to know why

 

[EvilPolygons]

We are in total agreement on the morality involved. I was just commenting on what the wording of the EULA is trying to achieve.

There are cases where what a camera captures can be copyright infringement, though. It really depends upon whether the photograph \ video thus created is substantially a separate work from the copyrighted material it includes. If you point your camera at a movie screen in a theatre, recording the entire movie, and then post that video online you are definitely infringing the movie's copyrights.

Which way a copyright infringement case goes when it comes to a video of videogame play is going to depend a great deal on where it is litigated and the person\people making the decision. Does the player contribute something of substance over and above what the creators of the game contributed? And here is where that EULA language starts to have some teeth. Without this language in the EULA the odds would likely still be in TFP's favor, but with this language the person playing the game "agreed" that the copyrights of videos they make of the game belong exclusively to TFP.

I posted relevant legal precedents previously in this thread. Software copyright does not extend to user generated content unless the software does the vast majority of the "creative" work, with minimal input from the user.

Lawyers can put anything they want into a EULA. But the courts have consistently ruled against companies who try to exert ownership of the creative works of end users.

Software EULAs give companies the right to terminate your license or seek damages for violating their IP rights. They do not give companies the power to seize ownership of creative works. Existing case law makes that pretty clear.